De effecten voor ons vind ik lastig om in te schatten. Vooral bij depressies die Noord Amerika verlaten lijkt me de invloed wat duidelijker. Wel is het natuurlijk zo, dat wat verderop in de stroming gebeurd, van invloed is op ons weer. De nuttigheid van deze 'nieuwe bron' moet zich laten 'inzien'. In ieder geval maakt het mij duidelijk dat er weinig consistentie is, en een boel onzekerheid. Laten we dat in ons achterhoofd houden. Of we nu steengoede runs krijgen of niet 
Nog een bijdrage van een poster over nut van NOAA. Komt er op neer (vertaling in hoofdlijnen) dat zij professioneel mee bezig zijn en in de samenstelling van hun berichten verschillende elementen van diverse modellen gebruiken.
What I always find interesting/value-add about the NOAA discussions, is that they obviously have absolutely no bias at play. To that end, they use different parts of different models - it's not just a 'hmm, that one looks good...let's pick that one'. Unfortunately, that's what I feel too many do on here. In many regards, I think this is probably what separates amateurs from professionals; the understanding that a professional forecast is often a blend between many different models - not just one.
Interesting that they've conducted a full blown u-turn on their interpretation of the ECM. Having completely blown the GFS out of the water (which they tend to do more often than not, of late) to bring it back into play, and especially in its most volatile period (borderline FI) is rather significant I'd hazard to say. I wonder if we'll see a correction in the ECM 12z? NOAA suggests its 0z output is not plausible, so you'd expect there would be. For the record, am not at all surprised at the inter-run variance in output as it's obviously such a 50/50 call on many of the underlying variables. Not really of the opinion that it's realistic to expect to see 'cross-model agreement' any time soon; great if it happens, but I think that's somewhat ignorant to the subtle variables at play. Besides, NOAA don't seem to care about whether all the models agree with each other; they just mix'n'match.
Nog een bijdrage van een poster over nut van NOAA. Komt er op neer (vertaling in hoofdlijnen) dat zij professioneel mee bezig zijn en in de samenstelling van hun berichten verschillende elementen van diverse modellen gebruiken.
What I always find interesting/value-add about the NOAA discussions, is that they obviously have absolutely no bias at play. To that end, they use different parts of different models - it's not just a 'hmm, that one looks good...let's pick that one'. Unfortunately, that's what I feel too many do on here. In many regards, I think this is probably what separates amateurs from professionals; the understanding that a professional forecast is often a blend between many different models - not just one.
Interesting that they've conducted a full blown u-turn on their interpretation of the ECM. Having completely blown the GFS out of the water (which they tend to do more often than not, of late) to bring it back into play, and especially in its most volatile period (borderline FI) is rather significant I'd hazard to say. I wonder if we'll see a correction in the ECM 12z? NOAA suggests its 0z output is not plausible, so you'd expect there would be. For the record, am not at all surprised at the inter-run variance in output as it's obviously such a 50/50 call on many of the underlying variables. Not really of the opinion that it's realistic to expect to see 'cross-model agreement' any time soon; great if it happens, but I think that's somewhat ignorant to the subtle variables at play. Besides, NOAA don't seem to care about whether all the models agree with each other; they just mix'n'match.
Wat heeft dit effect op ons? De gehele GFS00z-run was koud en de 00z EPS van EC was koud. Daarentegen was de GFS00z oper slecht en de 00z oper van EC ook slecht.
Uit de tekst lijkt het een beetje een ver van ons bed show te zijn, met ontwikkelingen die ons niet direct beïnvloeden?
Bericht laatst bijgewerkt: 22-01-2012 17:40
„Et nul ne se connait tant qu'il n'a pas souffert, „C'est une dure loi, mais une loi suprème, „Vieille comme le monde et la fatalité, „Qu'l nous faut du malheur regevoir le baptéme, ~Et qu'a ce triste prix tout doit étre acheté. „Les moissons pour murir out besoin de rosée, „Pour vivre et pour sentir l'homme a besoin de pleura, „La joie a pour symbole une plante brisée, „Humide encore de pluie et couverte de fleurs."